Amber Rhea of Being Amber Rhea talks about how most of the euphemisms for female genitalia double as insults that imply “weakness, uselessness, and contemptability.”
So, yeah, I will continue to get my panties in a bunch about pussy being used as an insult. Because it is NOT OKAY, and it IS important – not something to be “overlooked.” Likewise, years ago I stopped using “bitch” as an insult – there is no need to use a gendered insult when the non-gendered “asshole” or “jackass” or a million others will do. Plus I just hate the word. It makes me bristle and rankle and feel really bad inside. If I hear someone use it whom I consider a friend, suddenly I find myself questioning how much I should trust them.
And I will not abide those who roll their eyes and insist this is a minor issue and I’m – wait for it, here it comes – too sensitive.
If you give a shit about the status of women in society, you will STOP using those insults. That’s all there is to it.
Yes. Absolutely. It’s not just disgraceful it’s stupid.
I’ll go a step further and say you probably shouldn’t call yourself “sex positive” if you use any gender- or genitalia- or sex-act-specific terms as insults.
And yes, this goes waaaay back for me.
Submitted by 2894 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-04-29 17:23.
A week ago I left an online community I'd been heavily involved in for a third of my life because repeated rounds of similar conversations over many years proved that a proportion of the group too large to ignore would a) refuse to accept that such words actually were insulting to (in this case) women at large (various tactics were used to defend this refusal even when *every woman* in the discussion was saying that yes it is too insulting), and b) attack the person who asked that they not be used.
(Not to derail, but just for anyone who's interested in avoiding offensive language: "That's so gay!" and "That's so lame!" are similarly hurtful to large groups of people. If you're not sure what to replace them with, browse through a thesaurus and pick your favourite; I usually go with "pathetic." I've found that once I've made the substitution consciously a few times, my brain gets the hang of it and it's no effort at all. I'm finding colour trickier, because "white=Good, black=Evil" is such a pervasive metaphor in our language and society; but I think it's worth hacking away at subverting it.)
Submitted by 2894 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-04-29 19:02.
I don't completely agree. People don't think about etymology in the heat of the moment when they're swearing. Notice that you generally wouldn't call a guy a "vagina" or even a "cunt" to mean the same thing; only "pussy" carries the connotation of weak and cowardly. It's the word, not the body part, that's being referenced.
(In fact, at least some sources say that "pussy" for "vagina" and "pussy" for "coward" have separate etymologies, the latter being derived from the obsolete English "pursy." So there.)
(And hey, "jackass" is gendered! It's specifically male. Female donkeys are "jenny-asses.")
Then again I also say "bitch" and a lot of other insults which don't have secretly less-offensive meanings. I guess it's just that when I'm trying to offend, I'm trying to offend, and (in understanding company, or at least in my own mind) I'd no sooner sub in "pathetic" than I would "fudge."
It is, however, news to me that I am an untrustworthy friend and don't give a shit about women and am not sex-positive. Apparently saying "bitch" makes me a.... a fudge.
Submitted by 2894 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-04-30 10:28.
Gotta say I don't entirely agree. I see where you're coming from, obviously -- language shapes thought, language reflects though, how can you possibly have a positive opinion about something if a word that denotes that thing is also your worst insult. I've been in graduate school for nigh-on six years (ZOMG), and in the humanities, the Foucauldian-style "language is thought" style of argument is what we do all the time. So I know why it's important. & I don't have much patience when people say "how can it possibly matter, it's just words, you're being too sensitive."
On the other hand I think it's a misunderstanding of how language works to presume that the it's a clear window into the structure of thought, or that it "shapes thought" to the exclusion of all else. I've been influenced in this line of thinking by the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who has a recent book called The Stuff of Thought. He explains recent research showing how thoughts ARE, to a large extent, independant of whatever language system we happen to have learned.
I would argue it's highly possible to use a metaphor, without really accepting the implications of that metaphor. A person might hate war or even be a pacifist, but nevertheless use war as a metaphor for something commonplace, like an argument -- "I attacked his position," "I demolished his argument," etc. We wouldn't think, based on that, that the speaker "really" thinks war is good, or that conversations should resemble war. Someone can use "dick" or "schmuck" as an insult, even in a phallocentric culture, and somehow not be troubled by the logical contradiction.
Hmm this is turning into a long rant. Language is important, but using the "wrong" words won't corrupt a thoughtful, self-aware person, and using P.C. language won't fix someone else's disgusting worldview.
Submitted by 2894 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-05-01 19:12.
And Amber's post was quoting me partially on the subject of leaving that same community for the same reason, thus bringing us full circle.